Leatt Helmet doesn't look good at this crash...

drt410 wrote:

One more interesting thing of note: DOT is an American standard. Unlike the other certifications, DOT helmets aren't actually tested. It is up to the manufacturer...

One more interesting thing of note:

DOT is an American standard. Unlike the other certifications, DOT helmets aren't actually tested. It is up to the manufacturer to ensure their helmets are built to regulation and will survive crashes. Random checks are sometimes done and if the helmet fails, very heavy fines are imposed. ECE helmets are required to be tested and certified before the model is allowed to be sold.

This means at very high risk to the manufacturer, they can try to get around the rules and not test the helmet before putting it up for sale on the market. This leaves the MFG open for MASSIVE lawsuits... but it is possible that a Brand could skirt around this to save time/money. This is another reason why ECE and the British Sharp Certified Helmets are considered the best in the world.

OneWordResponseGuy wrote:

Hope you're eating crow from the last thread about these paper bag helmets.

TeamGreen wrote:

Bwahahahahaha Your such an ass-clown... My point was that a helmet DOESN'T have to be EXPENSIVE to be among the best... Case in point and here's...

Bwahahahahaha

Your such an ass-clown...

My point was that a helmet DOESN'T have to be EXPENSIVE to be among the best...

Case in point and here's YOUR CROW, fool (as worn by Troy, himself):

77Moto wrote:

What idiot pays 250 bucks to advertise for all those companies?

MX76er wrote:

What are the general guidelines on replacing a helmet if it’s never been in a crash or subjected to force. Does the helmet need to be...

What are the general guidelines on replacing a helmet if it’s never been in a crash or subjected to force. Does the helmet need to be replaced due to it having old material that is no longer reliable for safety? Anyone know if there is a standard for this? I own a 10 year old helmet that has been on the shelf collecting dust so want to figure out if it’s still safe. Thanks for any responses.

drt410 wrote:

What about this then ^^ Thats why I said its a compromise. You compromise the longevity of the helmet for it to crack in places that...

What about this then ^^


Thats why I said its a compromise. You compromise the longevity of the helmet for it to crack in places that otherwise would have been your skull. The crash impact forces were apparently so high that if this were transferred to his skull/brain hed be muuuch more jacked up than a broken nose and some cuts.

We dont know the forces involved here, but like I said Id rather have some cuts and a destroyed helmet that be in a coma. Leatt makes high quality products and they have stringent safety standards to meet.

Wed have to see how severe the crash was. The interior is meant to disperse the impact but theres only so much a couple inches of foam can do with extreme forces involved. The shell is there to protect the skull from fractures. If the helmet fractures it means your skull would have fractured. These helmets have to meet stringent safety standards. Its illegal for Leatt to sell a POS helmet that doesnt meet safety standards and will explode in normal crashes. This will happen if forces are beyond what a little foam can do.

Its the same concept as crumple zones in a car. The energy HAS to be absorbed somewhere. In a severe crash the car will be destroyed, but all that destruction absorbs energy that otherwise would have been transfered right through the occupants. What would you rather... a car that can survive crashes in tact but the people inside are scrambled eggs or a car that crumples, absorbs energy, and is destroyed, but everybody survives with minor injuries?

Sir wrote:

Never heard of Aria helmets. Arai on the other hand would learn from that malfunction and adjust design/manufacturing to ensure the best they could that would...

Never heard of Aria helmets. Arai on the other hand would learn from that malfunction and adjust design/manufacturing to ensure the best they could that would not happen again.

The concept might be the same as cars but then vehicle manufactures have considerably more material to work with. You may have noticed that automobiles are much larger than what they were back in the 80's/90's. What is considered a small car today would have been family size three decades ago. That concept cannot be used in helmet manufacture as you will end up with shell sizes that are way to big in comparison to the riders head, that in its self would be a hazard for the rider.

I would much rather suffer a concussion and have NO intrusion through the shell verses a helmet that has all the bells and whistles regarding MIPS and other absorption technologies but allows a foreign object to pierce the shell and through the skull. I think that has the bigger potential for a more brain damaging injury compared to a concussion, don't you?

drt410 wrote:

Im sorry but size has nothing to do with why cars are much safer today. It comes down to advances in meterials and engineering. They even...

Im sorry but size has nothing to do with why cars are much safer today. It comes down to advances in meterials and engineering. They even do tests of old cars vs new cars and the big cars of the past get demolished by the smaller new cars of today. Technology has allowed this. My example holds up perfect, unlike yours, because the helmet just like the car is designed to deform and break when absorbing large amounts of energy and the shell will crack vs your skull. Again.. these helmets have standards they have to meet, Leatt cant just put out a dud that is completely unsafe to the wearer.

Unluckily for your argument... They crashed a 1959 Bel air into a 2009 Malibu to show the effects of 50 years of engineering. The new car is actually smaller than the old car so your argument that new cars are safer because theyre bigger you can throw right out the window. Its not safer “because it got bigger” its safer because of engineering. The older Bel Air gets absolutely demolished. The dummy in the drivers seat is decapitated. The Malibu is a smaller car but it cuts thru the Bel Air like a hot knife thru Catanzarro butter.
https://youtu.be/fPF4fBGNK0U


1959 Bel Air

2009 Malibu




The test... Will the older car win because its bigger?

Boom

Not lookin good


Look at the difference in damage to the passenger compartment. You cant even see the dummy.. The left headlight is past the firewall *Dead


*Not Dead (Just Chillin)


I almost feel kinda bad lol cuz usually ppl are safe to talk out their ass on the internet and it usually ends with someone being wrong but both at least can feel like they were right in their head. I dont think he could have ever expected that when he said new cars are safer cuz theyre bigger that his argument was going to be so systematically and thoroughly dismantled like this.

Sorry bro

drt410 wrote:

One more interesting thing of note: DOT is an American standard. Unlike the other certifications, DOT helmets aren't actually tested. It is up to the manufacturer...

One more interesting thing of note:

DOT is an American standard. Unlike the other certifications, DOT helmets aren't actually tested. It is up to the manufacturer to ensure their helmets are built to regulation and will survive crashes. Random checks are sometimes done and if the helmet fails, very heavy fines are imposed. ECE helmets are required to be tested and certified before the model is allowed to be sold.

This means at very high risk to the manufacturer, they can try to get around the rules and not test the helmet before putting it up for sale on the market. This leaves the MFG open for MASSIVE lawsuits... but it is possible that a Brand could skirt around this to save time/money. This is another reason why ECE and the British Sharp Certified Helmets are considered the best in the world.

77Moto wrote:

Bullshit. DOT is only relevant when buying a helmet in the USA – it’s the equivalent to the EU ECE 22.05 standard. When you buy a...

Bullshit.


DOT is only relevant when buying a helmet in the USA – it’s the equivalent to the EU ECE 22.05 standard.

When you buy a motorcycle crash helmet in the US, you expect it to offer a decent level of protection and work pretty well as a helmet.

Well, much of the reason your expectations are met is probably down to the fact that motorcycle helmets are regulated when they’re put up for sale in the US – meaning they have to meet certain performance standards. If they don’t, the manufacturer/importer are fined and the helmet’s withdrawn from sale.

DOT stands for the Department of Transport FMVSS No.218 safety compliance testing for motorcycle helmets – FMVSS being the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

All of which is a good thing and should mean that if you buy a helmet with a DOT sticker on the back, it meets certain minimum standards for absorbing the shock of an impact; resisting impact penetration and having a retention strap that won’t stretch like a rubber band. Meaning it should protect your head in an accident.

So what is the DOT test?

The way it works is that the National Highways Traffic Safety Administration make a set of standards available to all manufacturers looking to sell helmets in the US. These manufacturers then need to produce helmets that’ll pass the test. If they do, they’re allowed to self-certify that the helmet will pass FMVSS 218 and can put a DOT sticker on the helmet when it goes on sale.

The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance are then tasked with testing a number of helmet models per year (in 2007 is was around 40) to ensure they comply with FMVSS 218 standards. If the OVSC find a helmet doesn’t pass their test, the helmet is removed from sale and the vendor has to either repair or replace the helmets for consumers at their own cost. They can also face very stiff fines.

The test itself comprises three elements.

First what’s called the impact attenuation test – which means the helmet is subject to impacts against a rounded and flat anvil after the test helmets have been ‘conditioned’ to reflect four different operating environments. That includes low/med/high temperatures and water immersed – all of which aims to ensure the helmet will still perform in different extremes of riding conditions.

Next is a penetration test where a 6lb 10oz pointed striker is dropped from 118 inches onto various parts all round the helmet – again against helmets that have been pre-conditioned to reflect four different operating conditions.

And finally, the retention strap is tested under 50 and 300lbs loads to ensure it doesn’t elongate more than an inch after load.

The only other check that the helmet then undergoes is to ensure that there’s enough peripheral vision allowed by the helmet – that’s a minimum of 105 degrees from centre.

If a helmet passes all these tests, it’s then reckoned to be compliant and the manufacturer/importer won’t get their arse kicked (phew!).

If you want to read LOTS of detail on the compliance testing itself, check out this link for the laboratory test procedure.

The DOT test probably isn’t the last word in ensuring your helmet’s a good one. But neither is it supposed to be – it’s more a way to ensure crash helmets sold as rider protection offer a minimum level of protection in the US. The next stage is to look towards either Snell or SHARP who both take compliant helmets (ECE 22-05 approved helmets in the case of SHARP, DOT in the case of Snell) and put them through more rigorous testing procedures to try and ensure they’ll give better real-world accident protection. Read our articles on Snell, SHARP or ECE 22.05 for more information.

Derek Harris wrote:

Ultimately you need TIME to slow the head down - if you had an instant stop to zero from even 1mph and your body didn't have...

Ultimately you need TIME to slow the head down - if you had an instant stop to zero from even 1mph and your body didn't have the internal impact resistance mechanisms you had - you could get a concussion. Thankfully the body has LOTS of give - and we can tolerate low level crashes.

A stiff indestructible helmet would not allow the brain more time to slow - it would be like hitting your head without a helmet

A helmet that is too soft/weak would not mitigate the speed and slow it down ENOUGH - resulting in a FAST stop AFTER you went through the helmet

Ideally helmets would be 10 feet around - from a physics standpoint. We could have a progressively stiffer material that absorbed all ranges of speeds and allowed plenty of time to slow the brain. Sadly you couldn't wear this and it would weigh too much.

Over the years helmets have found the largest usable size (6d pushed this out some) and weight. ALLLLL Helmets use a very similar foam internally. A form of EPS
The shell material - be it carbon, kevlar, dyneema, or plastic - is MOSTLY for weight. AKA properly designed a plastic shell or carbon shell can impact test the same. But to get lowest weight - the exotics are used.

Realistically - there is no short cutting weight. The airoh - is missing HUGE segments of EPS internally. It's NOT a "special" EPS or shell - it just has less EPS in spots. You can take that as you wish.

That's why ALL the premium helmets are VERY close in weight. Similar diameters - similar amounts of EPS, similar shell constructions etc.

The new fly increased their cost of production by using 12k carbon (stronger per unit mass) so they could use less carbon - lighter - and same strength. This was likely a decision made to get the weight down after say the rheon material addition that likely added weight.

Carbon tech is still evolving - so in 5 years someone will use 20k carbon and drop a tiny bit more weight.

And until we have some other serious material advancement that can be lighter than EPS (pretty damn light as it is) with the same mechanical qualities - helmets wont drop much weight.


The best thing is that TRUE progression is here and now. Helmets have been largely static for a LOOONG time.
Shoei and Arai set the standard for QUALITY OF BUILD - but don't mistake that for quality of protection
6d raised the benchmark for quality of protection - especially for the largest cause of concussions - low speed impacts (to the brain - not riding speed)
bell followed suit - because of 6d
MIPS - a separate company - innovated in a SIMPLE manner with improved rotational prevention - and it was applied to nearly ALL helmets because it's low cost and effective on old designs (retrofit)
Leatt has pushed in some ideas that WORK - conehead works, period
TLD looked at statistics in injuries - and improved a formerly week point of design by adding foam (more time to slow the brain) in a key area
Fly looked at it all and tried their effort to move the yardstick that next step based on the previous bodies of work

If shoei or arai dont' step up - it's only so long that "reputation" can take them.
Third party data WILL get out there - and as it does - manufacturers will have to keep up.

CalimeroFan wrote:

The Leatt helmet did what it should do. The chin bar broke off to prevent Anderson from breaking his neck. He came of pretty good if...

The Leatt helmet did what it should do. The chin bar broke off to prevent Anderson from breaking his neck. He came of pretty good if you ask me.

BobPA wrote:

Yeah, judging by the photo he looks great....How do you know he would have broken his neck if the chin bar stayed? Maybe the chin bar...

Yeah, judging by the photo he looks great....How do you know he would have broken his neck if the chin bar stayed? Maybe the chin bar failed at a level much lower than a neck breaking force.

I’d love to give the aforementioned doctor an open face helmet. Tell him to go into his parking lot, get on his knees and simulate a low speed face plant by just falling forward.....See how much he likes a skid lid with no chin bar then....